The U.S. criminal justice system is a distinctive, loosely coupled network of independent agencies. It is distinguishable from most nations that employ centralized oversight and top-down command structures (Hagan, 1989). Commonly categorized into three distinct fields of law enforcement, courts, and corrections, the U.S. criminal justice system operates within a multitude of decentralized governmental jurisdictions, including a federal government, 50 separate state governments, Washington, DC, as well as many county and city governments. Each criminal justice agency functions under the jurisdiction of a specific government level that is empowered with the authority to shape its own semiautonomous criminal justice system. This decentralized approach provides more autonomy, allowing for better accommodations to the unique interests of each region.

Despite the positive aspects associated with each region’s ability to construct its own criminal justice system to best meet its unique needs, this decentralization of power is susceptible to poor oversight, corruption, and the appearance of randomness when it comes to crime control and punishment practices. Although criminal justice agencies have an interconnected nature of their functions, each level of government follows its distinct criminal justice process. While they frequently interact, all criminal justice agencies maintain independence from one another. This decentralized structure reflects the commitment to a system that balances national guidelines with regional autonomy in criminal justice administration.

Federal Criminal Justice System

The federal criminal justice system in the United States is a vast and complex structure responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating crimes that violate federal laws. The federal criminal justice system is underpinned by an intricate network of laws, regulations, and constitutional principles, ensuring due process and the protection of individual rights. The federal criminal justice system emphasizes the adherence to federal laws, with prosecutions often involving crimes that involve the crossing of state lines or have a significant national impact, including cases related to immigration, drug trafficking, white-collar offenses, and national security. It operates in parallel with state and tribal criminal justice systems, with each having its own distinct jurisdiction and mandates.

As illustrated in Figure 1.4, the federal criminal justice system encompasses multiple federal agencies, each with specific roles and responsibilities. Among the most prominent are the federal bureau of investigation (FBI) and the U.S. Marshals Service. These agencies are part of the Department of Justice, a key federal institution responsible for overseeing the administration of justice at the federal level. The FBI, established in 1908, operates as the nation’s primary federal law enforcement agency. It conducts investigations into various federal crimes, including terrorism, counterintelligence, cybercrime, public corruption, organized crime, and civil rights violations. It plays a pivotal role in intelligence gathering and homeland security efforts, often collaborating with other agencies to ensure national security. The U.S. Marshals Service, dating back to 1789, is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency (Office of Public Affairs, 2020). The U.S. Marshals Service focuses on security and is responsible for apprehending fugitives, transporting federal prisoners, and managing the security of federal witnesses. It also oversees the safe and efficient operation of the federal judiciary.

Within this system, federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, investigate cases and, when appropriate, the Office of the Attorney General initiates criminal proceedings. Cases are then presented to federal prosecutors who decide whether to bring charges. Federal prosecutors, also known as U.S. Attorneys, work under the Department of Justice and are responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of federal crimes. The federal courts, including the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, serve as venues for the adjudication of federal cases. Federal judges preside over trials and sentencing. Cases typically begin at the district court level; decisions may then be appealed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals and ultimately may be heard by the highest judicial authority, the U.S. Supreme Court. The few cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court concern significant legal matters or the U.S. Constitution. The sentencing guidelines and procedures in the federal system are distinct from state systems and often result in longer sentences.

Overall, the federal criminal justice system is crucial for addressing crimes of national concern and maintaining the rule of law at the federal level. Federal agencies, such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, and the federal courts are integral components of an effective criminal justice system and are dedicated to upholding the principles of justice within the United States.

State Criminal Justice

The state criminal justice system in the United States is a multifaceted framework consisting of various agencies, each with distinct roles and responsibilities. Law enforcement agencies, such as state, county, and city police, as well as tribal and campus police, act within a specific jurisdiction and have delineated duties. State patrol agencies, such as the state police or highway patrol, have the authority to enforce all state laws; they predominantly focus on traffic laws, patrolling highways, providing assistance to motorists, and responding to major emergencies. They also offer investigative services to other law enforcement agencies. County sheriffs oversee law enforcement in county areas for criminal, traffic, and civil matters relating to state law and local ordinances within the county. Sheriff departments are often responsible for managing county jails, serving legal documents, and ensuring courthouse security. City police provide law enforcement for criminal and traffic matters related to state law and local ordinances. They are responsible for maintaining public order within city limits, investigating crimes, and enforcing local ordinances within the city limits. Tribal police address crimes occurring on Native American reservations, while campus police are tasked with handling campus-related offenses and ensuring safety on college and university campuses.

While all state court systems are structured hierarchically, they are not structured exactly the same. Courts of limited jurisdiction, such as district trial courts and municipal trial courts, handle misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and minor offenses, such as violations of city ordinances, noncriminal traffic violations, and civil cases. Courts of general jurisdiction, such as superior trial courts, handle all felony crimes and more complex and serious civil matters. State courts of appeals review trial court decisions to determine whether there were legal procedure violations or errors in the interpretation or application of law. State supreme courts serve as the highest appellate court, handling cases involving constitutional issues or significant legal questions.

County prosecutors, also known as district attorneys, represent the government in criminal cases. They are primarily responsible for reviewing, filing, and prosecuting criminal and civil cases involving violations of state or county law, prosecuting juvenile offender cases, convening and advising grand juries, and drawing indictments. Public defenders, on the other hand, provide legal representation to individuals in court proceedings who cannot afford a private criminal defense attorney. Criminal defense attorneys provide legal counsel and advocacy for their clients, while also making sure the criminal justice system maintains procedural justice. Furthermore, they help the client understand the court process and advise their clients on the pros and cons of accepting a plea bargain.

Jails, although typically managed by sheriff’s departments, may also be the responsibility of the city police or the state. Cities and counties use jails to house individuals awaiting trial or for offenders convicted of misdemeanors and felonies with sentences of less than one year. Prisons operate at the state level and house individuals convicted of more serious offenses with longer sentences, usually greater than one year. Prisons are designated as having different security levels, and inmates will be sent to maximum, medium, or minimum security level prisons.

Community corrections programs are used as alternatives to incarceration, and they usually provide a more cost-effective and rehabilitative approach. Community corrections encompass probation programs that allow convicted individuals to stay in the community under supervision rather than being placed in jail or prison. Similarly, courts might impose intermediate sanctions where the convicted individual is required to attend drug or alcohol treatment, participate in community service, or stay in home confinement. Community correction programs also provide assistance and supervision after an individual is released from prison or jail. Early release and parole programs are two post-incarceration programs that allow the convicted individual to spend the last portion of their jail or prison sentence in the community under supervision.

Community corrections departments are often responsible for offender community supervision. They conduct needs assessments for their clients, help with job and program placement, administer the state’s victim and witness notification programs, and prepare presentencing reports for judges.

Indigenous Legal Systems

Tribal or indigenous legal systems in the United States are deeply rooted in the rich traditions and cultural histories of Native American tribes. Unlike the mainstream American legal systems, indigenous legal systems reflect the unique values, norms, and governance structures of each tribal community. While considerable diversity exists among individual tribal legal systems, they share common foundational principles related to restorative justice, consensus-based decision-making, a profound connection to the land, and an emphasis on cultural traditions of healing and restoration (American Indian Policy Review Commission, 1977). Most importantly, these legal systems are an integral aspect of tribal sovereignty, enabling Native American nations to self-govern and preserve their cultural identities. It is crucial to recognize and respect the autonomy of indigenous legal systems that play a vital role in safeguarding the cultural heritage and the self-determination of Native American tribes.

Colonialism has significantly impacted indigenous legal systems and has had a profound effect on tribal law. The inherent sovereignty of tribal nations and their ability to self-govern have been the subject of legal disputes and negotiations with federal and state governments (Echo-Hawk, 2010). Key legislation milestones, such as the indian reorganization act (1934) and the indian self-determination and education assistance act (1975), have been pivotal to tribal sovereignty and have fortified indigenous legal systems.

Tribal law is a crucial factor in maintaining the self-governance and sovereignty of indigenous nations. It addresses a wide array of issues related to social and criminal matters, as well as land and resource management. One defining feature of tribal law is the emphasis on community values and collective decision-making. These foundational values shape the governing bodies in indigenous legal systems, which are often tribal councils or traditional councils comprised of respected community members or elders (Wilkinson, 1988). Guided by tribal customs and traditions, these consensus-building councils are crucial in decision-making and dispute resolution. Restorative justice practices, rather than punitive measures, are common outcomes of collective decision-making within tribal legal systems. Typically, these outcomes underscore efforts for collective healing and rehabilitation, as well as the nondiscriminatory reintegration of the violator into the community. This governance method reflects the communal approach to justice, highlighting the dynamic interplay between interconnectedness and interdependence prevalent in indigenous societies.

The maintenance of law and social order predominantly rests with legal professionals within the tribal community, such as members of the tribal police. Despite the intricate complexities in tribal law, indigenous legal systems operate collaboratively with neighboring city, state, and federal legal systems. Tribal law holds unique jurisdiction over crimes that occur within tribal territories, which are dependent on specific treaties and typically differ for tribal and non-tribal members. Consequently, in some instances, tribal law may lack jurisdiction for certain crimes committed on tribal lands by non-tribal members (Wilkinson, 1988). However, in these cases, the crime is typically addressed by a neighboring country, state, or federal legal system with overlapping jurisdiction, demonstrating the importance of effective collaboration among different American legal systems.

Given the profound spiritual and cultural significance of the land among Native American nations, many tribal legal systems incorporate principles and regulations concerning land use, hunting, fishing, and environmental stewardship (Krakoff & Rosser, 2016; Wilkinson, 1988). Consequently, tribal law is intricately linked to the preservation and protection of indigenous lands and resources, and it serves as an integral component of indigenous cultural preservation. In recent years, tribal nations have been at the forefront of ecological protection and land conservation efforts, asserting their right to protect ancestral territories. The collaborative endeavors of several Native American nations have made noteworthy contributions to their longstanding tradition of advocating for environmental justice (Krakoff & Rosser, 2016).

The Picket Fence Model

The picket fence model (Sanford, 1967), also recognized as an integrated criminal justice model, elucidates the relationships between the diverse criminal justice agencies operating at the federal, state, and local tiers. As illustrated in Figure 1.5 above, this conceptual framework envisions the criminal justice system as a complex network of both vertical and horizontal interconnections among its fundamental components. In this analogy, the federal, state, and local government are represented as three horizontal boards; the distinct criminal justice agencies, law enforcement, courts, and corrections, are represented by the vertical boards. The space between the boards symbolizes the autonomy of each criminal justice agency within the different government levels. The Picket Fence Model envisions collaborative efforts among the horizontal criminal justice agencies during various stages of the criminal justice process, including investigation, prosecution, adjudication, and correction. Additionally, it underscores the significance of vertical coordination between federal, state, and local jurisdictions, as well as the importance of promoting communication, information sharing, and collaboration among agencies to cultivate a more effective and efficient criminal justice system that will ensure a unified and expeditious response to criminal activities. However, despite the model’s aspiration for a seamless flow of information between law enforcement, the judiciary, and corrections at the federal, state, and local levels, the current criminal justice system lacks a centralized information-sharing infrastructure. This creates a significant obstacle to interagency and intergovernmental collaborations and diminishes the system’s responsiveness.

Careers in Criminal Justice: U.S. Forest Ranger

A career as a U.S. Forest Ranger offers an exciting opportunity to actively contribute to the protection and sustainable management of the nation’s invaluable forested areas. Forestry Rangers have diverse responsibilities, including preventing and extinguishing wildfires, enforcing regulations, advocating for sustainable land use practices, and participating in search and rescue missions. The salary ranges for Forestry Rangers vary widely based on location and experience, typically ranging from $40,000 to $80,000 per year (Forest Service, n.d.). While entry-level positions often require a high school diploma, advanced roles often mandate a bachelor’s degree in forestry, criminal justice, or a related field. Practical experience gained through internships or volunteer work is highly regarded in their field. Continuous training and professional development programs are available to further enhance skills and facilitate career progression in this dynamic and impactful field. The Forest Service offers ample opportunities for promotions, allowing individuals to advance into supervisory or managerial roles with substantial annual salaries.

Attributions

1. Figure 1.4: Agencies by U.S. Department of Justice in the public domain; Terms of use: “Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission.”
2. Figure 1.5: The Picket Fence Model by Kadence C. Maier, for WA Open ProfTech, © SBCTC, CC BY 4.0
3. Figure 1.6: Untitled by USDA Forest Service/Preston Keres in the public domain; U.S. government works created by a federal government employee as part of their official duties are in the public domain.